Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Statement

“In November, I informed the House that the Government would make a new decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report into the way changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. This followed relevant evidence coming to light as part of legal proceedings challenging the original decision announced by my predecessor in December 2024. We have now concluded the process to make a new decision and are placing copies of the Government’s full response in the Libraries of both Houses.

Before I turn to the substance, I think it is important to be clear what this decision and Statement is about, and what it is not about. There are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the state pension age, and in particular whether the decision taken in 2011 by the coalition Government to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do. But the issue we are discussing today is not the merits or otherwise of past policy decisions about the state pension age. What the ombudsman investigated was how changes to the state pension age were communicated and whether within a specific and narrow time period there was maladministration and injustice—and if so, whether that warrants compensation.

In March 2024, the ombudsman published its final report. As with so many other issues, the previous Government left the report on their desks, issued no response, took no decision, and left it to this Government to respond. In December 2024, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right honourable friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), set out the Government’s response, having considered all the information provided to her.

However, given that relevant research from 2007 about the effectiveness of sending letters subsequently emerged that had not been provided to my right honourable friend, I wanted to ensure that the right and proper process was followed to take account of this alongside the information previously considered. Of course, I asked the department not just to consider the 2007 report but to undertake new searches as part of an extensive review of relevant historical documents to help inform the new decision.

We accept that individual letters about changes to the state pension age could have been sent earlier. For that, I want to repeat the apology that my right honourable friend the Member for Leicester West gave on behalf of the Government. I am sorry those letters were not sent sooner. We also agree with the ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay.

However, the question is about the impact of the delay in sending those letters. The evidence taken as a whole, including that from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s-born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. Furthermore, the evidence also suggests that those less knowledgeable about pensions—the very women who most needed to engage with a letter, and for whom it might have made a difference—were the least likely to read it. An earlier letter would therefore have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age. Indeed, the 2007 report concluded that automatic pension forecast letters had only a negligible impact on pensions knowledge and planning, and the department stopped sending them.

The evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide range of public information, including leaflets, education campaigns, information in GP surgeries, and information on TV and radio, in cinemas and online. To specifically compensate only the women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women, including whether someone genuinely did not know that their state pension age was changing and whether they would have read and remembered a letter from many years ago and acted differently. It would not be practical to set up a compensation scheme to assess the answers to those questions conclusively.

A flat-rate scheme would cost up to £10.3 billion and would simply not be right or fair, given that it would also be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes. I have heard calls for compensation aimed at lower-income pensioners, and we have focused in the past 12 months on raising pension credit uptake, but in the context of this decision, a scheme focused on any single income group still would not specify who may or may not have suffered injustice. That is why, in taking this new decision, we have come to the same conclusion on compensation as that announced by my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State in December 2024.

I know that many people feel that the state pension age should not have gone up in the way that it did; indeed, Labour argued against the 2011 policy decision put in place by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that accelerated the increase. However, I repeat what I said at the start of my Statement: that is a different issue to the one the ombudsman investigated and that I am responding to today, which relates to the communication of changes in the state pension age and, narrowly, to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period.

The changes from 2011 underline the importance that decisions on the state pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives, and I take seriously the need to weigh carefully any future changes. That is why, together with the ombudsman, the department has been developing an action plan for the future. Work on that had stopped pending today’s decision, but I can confirm that it will now resume.

It also underlines why we are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes, the majority of whom are women, have a better life in retirement, just as Labour has done in the past—from the Wilson Government, who first formally linked the uprating of pensions to the higher of earnings or prices, to the previous Labour Government, who lifted 1 million pensioners out of poverty. Labour introduced pension credit, which is vital in topping up the incomes of the poorest pensioners, with women consistently making up the majority of those benefiting since we first introduced it in 2003. This Government are ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up, which saw tens of thousands more pension credit awards in the year up to November than in the previous year.

In addition, our commitment to the triple lock for this Parliament means that women will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the state pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. We are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists. This is the positive difference our Government are making.

I believe it was right to review the evidence and that, having done so, we have made the right decision based on due process and the body of evidence. At the same time, looking to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement and help them to build a better life for themselves and their families. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but it does not, in my view, completely address directly the issue that lies at the heart of the anger felt by many WASPI women. I am assured that the maladministration identified by the ombudsman, and the associated question of a financial remedy, arose from decisions taken under a Labour Government that were the responsibility of Labour Ministers. In the years that followed, there was notable and sustained support from Labour Members for the WASPI campaign, including calls for compensation, voiced by individuals who now occupy the most senior positions in government.

Now that Labour is in power, that position appears to have been abandoned. The result is not merely disappointment, but a profound sense of betrayal. It is no wonder that WASPI women are furious. At no point in the Oral Statement, as far as I can see or understand, was this reversal acknowledged. Instead, attention was diverted towards general references to changes in the state pension age, which did nothing to address the specific findings of maladministration or the expectations that were so clearly raised.

There is a strong sense of frustration surrounding this issue, not only among Members of this House but, more importantly, among the WASPI women. Much of that frustration arises not simply from the substance of the decision but from the manner in which it has been handled and communicated by the Government. From welfare reform to the winter fuel payment, and now this, a pattern has emerged of poor communication and delayed decision-making. Too often, it is not the policy itself that causes the greatest anger but the uncertainty, delay and lack of clarity that surround it. Indecision is itself a decision. In this case, it has meant leaving people’s lives and expectations suspended for months.

In recent months, expectations appear to have been raised only to be lowered again. Following the ombudsman’s report, many campaigners believed that a different outcome was genuinely under consideration, only to be told once more that nothing had changed. The Minister will recall suggestions that decisions on this matter were left unresolved until after the general election in 2024. That is not entirely accurate. Statements made before the election set out the Government’s position with some clarity, which makes it legitimate for WASPI women to ask why more recent communications appeared to imply that the issue and situation remained open.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. The Government say the WASPI women should have known about the changes. I am reminded of a quote from the book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

“But the plans were on display … you found the notice, didn’t you? … It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’”.

Another relevant quote from the same book said:

“All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 … years”.

The issue here is whether these women were communicated with adequately. Some 3.6 million WASPI women have been badly treated. They were given some hope; we have an ombudsman who made a recommendation to provide some justice and pay some compensation. Can the Minister say why this recommendation has been ignored? We have heard apologies but no compensation.

If you were a woman who knew that, at a certain age, you would receive a pension you probably did not give it another thought that the rules had changed. Of course, lots of announcements were made, and lots of letters were sent—sometimes belatedly, as the ombudsman said—but the truth is that the messages were not received or understood. The ombudsman has recommended compensation of £1,000 to £2,950 per person. I ask the Minister, very bluntly, why this recommendation has not been implemented. It is not a question of justice, but a reluctance to spend money on a group of people who cannot fight back.

Can the Minister take back to her colleagues in the department that there is a feeling—I hope—across this House that the WASPI have been maltreated and that the least they should expect is for the recommendation of the independent ombudsman to be put into effect? It is not enough, in my view, but it has come from the ombudsman, and I would like to hear what reasoning the Minister can give for ignoring this. I hope that she will take back to her colleagues in the other House and in the department the feelings of this House that the ombudsman’s decision should be honoured.